I’m looking into designing some baseplates with fixed bases (particularly biaxial bending). When designing in RAM Connection, you have the option to consider strain compatibility or ignore it. My understanding is that the compatibility assumption treats the baseplate as completely rigid and a linear relationship is used between the compression and tension strains. When not considered, the program sets maximum compressive stress in the concrete equal to the code allowable value and then solve for anchor force to get things into equilibrium.
A separate option toggles between a triangular and uniform distribution of stresses in the concrete/anchor bolts. Although the program seemingly has no mention of a tie tie between the triangular pressure distribution and a rigid baseplate, wouldn’t one imply the other? If the baseplate was truly rigid, would you not end up with a similar triangular pressure distribution? I apologize if I’m missing something, just wanted to make sure I’m understanding things correctly. AISC DG1 allows you to use either a uniform distribution or triangular distribution interchangeably. If the triangular distribution implies a rigid baseplate, it seems like you'd be able to use a rigid or non-rigid baseplate interchangeably as well. Let me know if any of these assumptions are incorrect - it seems like the rigidity of the baseplate would be dependent on the overall geometry of it.
Note: I have glanced at the paper on biaxial analysis and have been looking through DG1 and Appendix B.
communities.bentley.com/.../biaxial-analysis-of-general-shaped-base-plates
